Re-Branding DipNote

DipNote, the "U.S. DEPARTMENT of STATE OFFICIAL BLOG," is looking to re-name itself and, towards that end, has solicited in-house suggestions.

Suggestions are due by tomorrow, Friday, November 30, 2012.

Ping

Just to be clear, CAA is not dead, injured, committed to an asylum, nor otherwise being held incommunicado.

Nor have the Tigers (or Black Dragons) eaten me.

CAA has been the victim of a horrible plot to "upgrade" my Blogger/Blogspot experience.

Oh joy.  My "experience" is now so upgraded that I'm seriously considering giving up on the whole thing entirely.

In other news, there's been lots of goings-on ongoing in CAA's world.  Which is your world, come to think of it.  So you likely have heard all about most of it.

There are many conflicting reports about the events of this year's 9/11 attacks.  Which is what I'm calling them.  Because that's what they were.

CAA has no special knowledge of those events, privileged or otherwise.  CAA's clearances and accesses simply don't run to those areas these days.  So if I opine just a bit, it's not like I'll be betraying any confidences.

So if, between my cranky home computer and this annoying-as-Hell "upgrade, I can manage to sketch out a more topical post, well, don't hold your breath.

The "Northern Virginiastan" web log returns

After a more-than-two-year interregnum, the Northern Virginiastan web log ("Monitoring how Islam is subverting public institutions in Northern Virginia and the greater DC Metro Area") has resumed posting.

(That is all.)

re: "What do you do with a "problem" like Peter Van Buren? Take away his badge, escort him out, bar the door, throw away the key and ...."

Domani Spero at Diplopundit (" one of the best niche blogs for Foreign Service folks ") considered Mr. Van Buren's situation last October.

Money quote(s):

"Mr. Van Buren was escorted out of the State Department on Monday and barred from returning while officials there decide what to do next with him. Our own source said that Mr. Van Buren has been placed on administrative leave for the next couple of weeks. Admin leave is like “we’ll pay you so we don’t have to see you.” I supposed that’s until they can find the citation in the FAM that would fit this “problem.” Mr. Van Buren’s current assignment reportedly had also been curtailed. If true, that means they just took away his desk and chair, too. So even if he is allowed to return after his admin leave, he won’t actually have a job to return to."

&

"Mr. Van Buren’s book is highly critical of the State Department’s work in Iraq, the accompanying blog, just as critical. Not sure if the punishment is for the book, the blog, or for both. No one would speak on the record. The suspension letter did not cite the book, but did cite as one of the author’s faults, “an unwillingness to comply with Department rules and regulations regarding writing and speaking on matters of official concern.”

This is the first time, as far as memory goes, that the State Department had actually yanked somebody’s clearance over “publishing articles and blog posts on such matters without submitting them to the Department for review.” Whereas, in the past, I was aware of the shock factor in threatening bloggers with this in-house version of the “nuclear” option, this is the first time where somebody actually pushed the red button. And in a very public way. "

&

"(A)lthough Mr. Van Buren is the first ever blogger escorted out of the building, he was only the latest casualty in the tigers can bite you escapades inside the State Department. Some FS bloggers have been unable to get suitable ongoing assignments – or even normal responses to their bid lists. As one recently told me, “these officers have not asked for extraordinary favors: just regular, humdrum postings that fall comfortably within the bidding rules, that are not heavily bid or bid on by superstars, and for which they are completely competent. ….they have heard only silence.”

Assignment issues, blogger disappearances and PVB’s case undoubtedly will bring a big chill to the FS blogosphere. Don’t be shocked if folks go back to the 50′s and start hiding their journals under their pillows, as was quaintly suggested elsewhere."

CAA has not, to date, suffered any noticeable adverse career impact due to blogging.

"I think it must be said that the State Department handled the book clearance badly. Somebody should have owned up to the snafu instead of gunning after the author. The 30-day timeline for clearing the book lapsed. It was not the author’s fault regardless of whether or not the person responsible for clearance had a meltdown, a baby, was sick or was on vacation. But State like any old and cumbersome bureaucracy is loath to admit to its own mistakes. They cleared Condi’s book within the 30-day timeline, yet Mr. Van Buren’s book was not afforded the same courtesy. The State Department, in short, broke its own clearance procedure. And when Mr. Van Buren published the book as allowed under its own regulations in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State accused him of “unauthorized disclosures of classified information,” and asked his publisher for redactions six days before the book hit the stores. Can you imagine them doing that to Secretary Rice’s book? Nope. Big fry, small fry; are there different rules?"

Different spanks for different ranks. It's sort of like the Air Force that way.

"(G)iven the potential fallout from a book about reconstruction in what has always been an unpopular, contentious war, and given how much money we’re spending on reconstruction projects over in Iraq, somebody higher than a Deputy Assistant Secretary should have read the book, cleared his/her calendar and spoke privately with the author. Instead of sending the tigers with sharp teeth. I have not meet Mr. Van Buren in person, and he may be far from cutesy and cuddly, but he has written a vivid, engaging account of our reconstruction debacle in Iraq seasoned with absurdities, great and small. To dismiss him as nothing but a disgruntled employee is just plain brainless. Public opinion is already against the Iraq war. Add to that the rest of the domestic headaches that the American taxpayers have been suffering in the last several years. And what do you get? A public relation disaster, with the State Department as the big, bad growling tiger in a starring role. It does not help that State appears to be acting like a big, bad growling tiger trying to eat an angry mouse. "

Overkill much?

"(S)omebody from the Seventh Floor should have attempted to speak with him. He, after all, spent 23 years with the State Department and cared enough to write the Iraq Experience down in a book. With his name on it. Not even the folks interviewed by USIP were willing to put their names down in that Oral History Project. But no one bothered to speak with him. A DAS alleging his disclosure of classified info did eventually write to him, albeit belatedly, and not really to listen to what he had to say.

It’s as if the State Department is proud of all its smart people except for those with the guts to speak up, or write a critical book. Or are they only proud of our smart diplomats when they dissent in private, in a channel that the American public never ever gets to hear, and that which the organization is free to ignore? The guy who talks too much not only gets a good hearing in my book, he or she should be afforded an opportunity to contribute in fixing the problems that he cites. No, we do not shoot the messengers in our book. Most especially if they are bearing bad news. But that’s us. Unfortunately, that is often the case in the bureaucracy, the State Department perhaps more so than most. A dead messenger is a good messenger, no news is good news. "

BTW, the "Seventh Floor" is the part of Main State where all the under secretaries, deputy secretaries, and the secstate have their offices.

10/28

"some ideas on where the line is"

Newly-hired FSO McKeatings of All Aboard the Crazy Bus ("a just-joined Foreign Service family working through a new career and taking care of our family of five plus pets") answered my question of last week (Q: "Anybody know which number A-100 class this is?". A: "We are, for now, the 'Cheerful Members of the 168th' ".) and posed another:

"I started a blog and then we had our first ISSO briefing that more or less told us to stop it and then a briefing by the AS for PD who told us to use social media. Can you help a fellow CONS officer with some ideas on where the line is?"

This question has come up a few times before.

But in addition to re-heating the same old hash, I figured it was time for something of an update:

"Since that advice dates from JANUARY 2, 2009, here're a few thoughts for the new decade.

1. Obviously, the new administration came (and I still have my job). So far, so good.

2. Social media is definitely something you need to be comfortable using as an FSO these days. When you get to post, if your embassy doesn't already have a web page and a Facebook page (relatively few posts now, I think), get one started.

(Interjection: I shouldn't have to say this, but I will. One does not simply walk into starting a blog or web page for your post. The wheel having already been invented, there are policies and procedures in place for this already so don't go off half-cocked. Impetuousness is not one of the cardinal virtues of a diplomat.)

3. Consular officers should be especially proactive in terms of using social media such as Facebook to maximize information saturation and message dissemination when it comes to things in the consular bailiwick, whether they be things like Travel Warnings/Advisories or changes to your operating hours or holiday schedules for consular services and contact information.

Most of that stuff goes through a clearance process in-house so there shouldn't be any issues about using social media to push it out to your readers/visitors.

3. For reasons of safety/security, don't publicize your own travel/movements or those of family members or staff. I shouldn't _have_ to say that, but I will anyway.

Afterwords, put up all the (tasteful) pictures and such that you like.

Of course, if you're trying to advertise, for instance, a public event like an Amcit town hall meeting or something, then you're going to announce that; but that's the exception to the rule.

4. Use common sense. Drunken party pictures of yourself, other diplomats, &tc., don't exactly cover the Foreign Service with glory. While these things can happen (and pictures can get taken) don't be the knucklehead who puts them on their blog.

5. Keep using common sense. Writing embarrassing things about your country-of-assignment might not be helpful in terms to enabling you to accomplish your job in that country.

I'm not telling you to lie, and I'm certainly not telling you not to "tell it like it is" about the "facts on the ground" when it comes to your reporting cables back to D.C. In fact, reporting cables are _exactly_ where that stuff should be written. It's what they/we pay you to do, in fact.

6. Use some more common sense. Never discuss ongoing classified or sensitive matters within your cognizance. Declassification dates exist for a reason.

Best of luck in your new careers, 168th!"

Vaya con Dios!

National Day of Blogger Silence — This Friday

In solidarity with Ace of Spades (among others), CAA will be participating in the "National Day of Blogger Silence."

(If you don't know why, then you've got your reading cut out for you.)

re: "Unhappy New Year."

Col. B. Bunny at the Intergalactic Source of Truth ("Ridding the World of Inconvenient Infidels.") evaluated the dangers facing our country during the current year.

Money quote(s):

"I don't agree that the military's the problem. Ten tons of Joint Chiefs' "recommendations" for occupying Iran or Venezuela amount to precisely nothing when the president wants something else. McArthur wanted to turn portions of China into a parking lot and ended up retired.

But "dysfunctional Congress" works just fine. Why? Because We're dysfunctional." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The problems with our Congress and with our two major political parties are self-evident, the topic of much learned discussion, and are too vast to be tackled in this space (particularly by someone who requires the "advice and consent" of the Senate).

"We tolerate a Supreme Court that couldn't find the Constitution in a box of Cracker Jacks and is like the aforementioned Chihuahua when it comes to safeguarding the liberties of Americans instead of the pissed-off pit bull that we should have."

There are some sharp legal minds on our top judicial bench, and not all of them read our Constitution from what you might consider a friendly perspective.

(Okay, those justices don't actually tend to have the sharpest Crayola's in the pre-school, but they each get a vote.)

"I wish for Americans to wake up. We don't have to become historians or a constitutional experts. We just have to start getting pissed when foreigners, barbarians, parasites, liars, and corrupt politicians tell us how great it is that we're being robbed, sidelined, and set up so our descendants, soon to be awash in a sea of hostile foreigners, can pay the bill for the looting that's been done in the name of "democracy," "equality," "human rights," "feminism," "fairness," a "living constitution," multiculturalism, libertinism, affirmative action, and anti-racism."

I don't always agree with everything the good Col. Bunny has to say; Hell, I frequently find myself objecting to quite a bit of his stuff.

But most often, when I take a step back, I find that my objections are often based upon his use of politically-incorrect speech rather than any objective or logical flaw of his.

(Which tells me more about myself than about him.)

1/3

Blogger vs. Internet Explorer vs. Google Chrome

CAA has been experiencing considerable difficulty of late with editing and preparing web log posts.

Blogger apparently no longer supports my version (if any) of Internet Explorer and recommends I use Google Chrome. So I'm trying that.

(But it still won't let me use "Text Color." Fascists.)

At the same time, Blogger is phasing-in an "updated Blogger interface."

(Don't they know that primates instinctively fear and resist change?)

re: "Pardon Him, Theodotus: Neptunus Lex: Carroll LeFon"

Very sad news indeed.

The milblogging community has lost a member, a family has lost a husband and father, and the nation has lost a patriot.

Rest in peace, Lex.

re: "Foreign Service Blogging: Tigers Have Teeth, Rather Sharp ... Rawr!!!"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") blogged on the hazards of Foreign Service blogging.


Money quote(s):


"A while back someone else also wrote to inform me that he/she was "strongly reminded" that blogging can lead to at least pulling the security clearance, forced (involuntary) curtailment, followed by loss of job, arrest, detainment and prosecution. Understandably, that blog is not here or there, anymore.


The Tigers roared baring fangs, which means the threat of no food on the table, arrest, detainment, well, just about everything, really. Except they forgot to include non-promotion and career suicide. Of course, if you lose your job, there would be no point worrying about a promotion or a career." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


The "Tigers." Them's State Dept. powers-that-be (or as Dave Barry famously described them: "white men in blue suits"). A.k.a. "Black Dragons" or "mandarins."


The most famous, and fairly current example, of an FS blogger come acropper has to be We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts And Minds of the Iraqi People"). Of course, Van Buren, Esq., did a bit more than just blog, whatever you may think of the merits/demerits of how the Department has/is handled his situation.


CAA prefers to blog pseudonymously, for a number of good reasons. Frankly, it's just good operational security. On the other hand, CAA is not one of the scores of new officers who've joined the Foreign Service and were already longtime bloggers.


"In some places, the Foreign Service is now like a scene out of Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, only this time, the letter one wears in not "A" for Adultery but "B" for Blogger. You blog at your own risk under the Big House's 21st century statecraft jungle regardless of the nice things they say about freedom and the Internets.


Here are a few things I'm kicking around the campfire concerning the various disappearances of Foreign Service bloggers through the years. A quick caveat: I am talking out loud there, so try not to misconstrue the following as an advice in any shape or form; they're not. Also please do not write and ask for "real" examples of "Tiger" blog take down. They are not my stories to tell and I respect the privacy of the bloggers who make no public explanation of their online death." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


Lots of excellent FS bloggers have either taken down their posts, sanitized them, or simply discontinued posting. Sometimes that simply the press of business, of work-life balance, of being to busy being and doing to spend much time writing about it. Sometimes ones FS job involves so much writing that doing even a little bit more, even when its for yourself, is just too much effort.


"(I)t seems like "FS bloggers should never mention *anything* about work." Why? Probably because vague blogging isn't as vague as you think and you never know who's reading your blog? Even if Diplomatic Security sees no problem with your blog, your regional/functional bureau or post management may have issues with it. I don't think it has anything to do with what you write per se, it has everything to do with fear and the lack of control. Fear from management that your blog has a ready, captive audience and fear that you might write something out of turn. And there is the notion that you have a direct connection to an audience and your right to self expression has not undergone any sort of vetting by the higher-ups who luv their red pens!"


The Department has evolved some since its 18th century origins, but those origins, and the Dead White Males who populated them, have left a lasting imprint on our corporate culture. In some ways, these are good things.


Por ejemplo, diplomacy is still, rather widely, seen as more than just a job. Like the military, like the church, like academia, the profession of diplomacy (and of diplomats) is a legacy out of the Middle Ages and indeed Late Antiquity (and later Byzantium) itself. Like those cited examples, the profession of diplomacy remains more even than merely a career; it is a calling and a vocation.


On the other side of the ledger, the practice of modern U.S. diplomacy has evolved considerably, with parallels to the similar evolution of micromanagement in military command and control spawned by the technological revolution in worldwide communication.


Once upon a time "our man" on the spot had to be trusted and empowered to act on our behalf according to his latest (telegraphed) instructions, his detailed local knowledge, and his best judgment.


Nowadays, our "man" may be a woman and will never be too far separated from an email, a conference call, an "instant message," and their Blackberry. Upper management's capability for micromanagement produced the temptation, even the obligation, to do so.


So throwing social media into the mix, where even lesser sorts can write, and self-publish (for values of "publish") their unvarnished observations without the benefit of a traditional "clearance" process must truly be an upsetting experience for some folks in high places.


"(M)aybe folks should never blog anything that could be perceived as critical towards the Foggied Bottom, the Foreign Service, the host country, or ones clients (visa applicants, AmCits, official contacts, etc. etc.), even if you're only complaining about somebody sneezing or snoring loudly.


Concerned about all promotions going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan hands regardless of actual performance? Okay, but that may not be the best subject to blog about, most especially if you're bidding.


Big House functionaries talking about internet freedom really hurts your ears now? Okay, but it won't do any good to talk about the cause of that ear ache in your blog.

You cannot/cannot blog about the smell you have to endure as you sit in your visa interview window because it's bad form to talk about body odors, period. You cannot/cannot blog and complain about seeing boobies with nursing mommies as you conduct visa interviews because breastfeeding is udderly not optional when you have a screaming infant. Trust me on this.


You cannot make snarky comments in your blog about your Amcit clients no matter how loony and unreasonable their demands might be (they are covered by the Privacy Act of 1974). You cannot complain in your blog that your host country has no sidewalks, it might upset the Tourism Bureau. You cannot complain in your blog about getting Montezuma's Revenge because it might upset the host country's Sanitation Bureau. And on and on ...you get the drift? Somewhere there's a fill in the blank form in the shared drive on what FSOs should not blog about, but don't look for that list in the FAM.

EFMs must not blog about how every transfer is like a reinvention of wheels at the Big House because it would make the HR Bureau look bad. Gawd lord! They should not blog that their spouse's HR Technician kept messing up their Travel Orders because it makes the HR staff look incompetent (and some of them are). They should blog zilch /nada about housing, because hey, it's free housing and the leaking roof should not be a big deal! They should not blog about the American school because isn't it enough that you are in a country with an American school? EFMs above all should not blog too loudly about the lack of embassy jobs; didn't ya know that 9.1% of Americans in the United States of America are out of work?! Somewhere there's a fill in the blank form about what EFMs should not blog about, but it's a secret until they call you or your spouse for that Talk. (I'm having a hard time locating my sarcasm off button, sorry!)"


This is just too much (and too good) not to take a point at a time.


a.) "never blog anything that could be perceived as critical towards the Foggied Bottom, the Foreign Service, the host country, or ones clients"


Easier said than done.


Like any institution larger than can be fit into a phone booth (remember them?), the State Dept. and the Foreign Service are vulnerable to brontosaurus syndrome.


That is, information can take so long to filter through its ponderous nervous system from tail to brain (and back) that those signals can be out-of-date, and even dangerous, before they arrive. It makes them vulnerable to "the stupids."


This is not a criticism for which the Service or the Department are uniquely qualified, to be sure.


Still and all, criticizing one's host nation online while attempting to diplomatically represent the U.S. in real life is kind of stupid too. Sort of defeats the purpose.


Host nations, and cultures, can be awfully touchy about things that may seem innocuous.


Some particularly touchy nations may even seize upon blogged "criticism" as an excuse for other actions. So it's wise not to give your opponents any extra ammunition. Not to put too fine a point on it, but some of the police states to which we have diplomatic representation are not really our friends, although in the interests of world peace we certainly try our best to change that reality.


b.) "all promotions going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan hands regardless of actual performance"


Really? From reading Diplopundit, I've gotten the impression that, at least at the highest levels, the true path to promotion seems to run through assignment in the Human Resources bureau rather than through any particular set of hardship assignments.


That being said, I've seen officers with hardship assignments and those without get promoted. It's probably fairer to say that lots of the better or more desirable (i.e., Western Europe and other First World) assignments get tied up by Afghan, Iraq, and Pakistan "linked" assignments.


Some find it unfair that this should be so, arguing that their own unique circumstances (family and/or medical issues) prevent them from taking such assignments. It can also be argued that it's unfair that those lacking family and/or medical issues that would exempt them from hardship post assignments should have to shoulder that entire burden. And both camps would be entirely correct.


Life is not fair.


c.) "Big House functionaries talking about internet freedom really hurts your ears now"


There really is a world of difference between being a Chinese dissident liable to be arrested and have their organs harvested after a botched execution and someone be counseled to not publicly blog against their employer. The two simply aren't comparable other than as an example of how everything simply isn't co-equal.


d.) "smell you have to endure as you sit in your visa interview window.... body odors.... boobies.... nursing mommies.... breastfeeding.... screaming infant"


Any consular officer can confirm that the 15-minute forced entry/ballistic resistant (FE/BR) interview window, even with mandatory "overpressure" airflow, is not powerful enough to prevent exposure to the body odor of some applicants.


Simply. Not. Powerful. Enough. (No offense intended to Ross or Norshield.)

Yes, Americans have a well-known and justified terror of body odors. This can be best explained by the decades-long campaigns of television advertisers to convince us we smell bad so as to sell more soap. Ever wonder where the term "soap opera" comes from?


Still, even allowing for mad cultural variations, disparities in the availability of water for personal washing or laundry, and the like, some visa applicants (and even Amcit clients) simply and frankly reek. Some truly reek far more than their co-nationals. And not overdue-for-a-shower stinky; we're talking fell-int0-a-latrine reeky. Wishing that away doesn't make it so.

(Oddly, the stinkiest identifiable groups in my recollection has been men-of-the-cloth. Not every reverend, priest, or shamen, mind you, and certainly not as a group. But they're over-represented on the stinkiest extreme of the Bell curve. And I haven't a clue as to why.)


As for breastfeeding and nursing mothers versus screaming infants, that's a no-brainer. As a visa interviewer with at least half-vast experience, I learned very early in my consular career that the occasional glimpse of bare mammaries is greatly to be preferred over a waiting room full of screaming infants. Case closed. Grow up and get over it. And if mentioning it in an FS blog disturbs any Tigers, they need to grow up and get over it.

e.) "snarky comments in your blog about your Amcit clients "


Yes, the Privacy Act of 1974 prevents blogging about what I term "stupid American tricks" in sufficient detail that it's not even worth trying to sanitize the story for blog posting.


Some of your American clients have unrealistic expectations about what the embassy can do for them. Some of them have gotten themselves into such personally hazardous circumstances that you wish you could send the embassy marines (if you're lucky enough to have them at your post) out with the embassy softball team's equipment (i.e., bats) to sort things out for them. (The which you may not do.)

Others are, not to put too fine a point on it, crazy. Or criminals. And by criminals I mean well and truly wanted in the U.S. by lots of fine law enforcement folks.

As a consular officer, you can minimize, to a degree, some of the unrealistic expectations among your Amcit expatriats by means of an active consular outreach program, including holding local "town hall meetings" out and about within your consular district. (But that still won't fully eliminate the problem.)


f.) "complain in your blog that your host country "

See my answer to "a.)" above. This is something that FS bloggers have to gauge very carefully and finely, calibrating it precisely to your own particular host country.

g.) "HR staff look incompetent"

CAA has generally had good luck with HR folks, at least the U.S.-based ones; and even abroad it's been fairly passable. Not everyone is so lucky.

h.) "Housing"

FS housing is one of those things that varies wildly from post to post. In my own career (incl. Western Europe, Third World, embassies, and a constituent post), I've lived on embassy-only compounds, on the economy, in apartments, and in houses. Plus I have the perspective on government-furnished housing that a prior, military, career can lend.

Nowhere is going to be just like home. Nowhere is going to be like your last place in D.C. Nowehere is even going to be like your last overseas post. I've seen FSOs (and their spouses) with frankly outragous and unrealistic expectations as to how they should housed and with what amenities.

(Dude, you passed the FS exam; you didn't win the lottery!).

That being said, in my own browses of FS and FS family blogs, I've seen far more posts which are complimentary of embassy housing maintenance and other support in dealing with the problems that unavoidably come up than I've seen princessly whining.

It does seem like blogs by FS spouses deal more with the problems, and problem-solving, of embassy housing than those by the officers (and specialists) themselves. But then, how could they not?

Military readers will be familiar with the phrase "Household" or "Kitchen" "Six." "Six" signifying the commander, and "Household" (or "Kitchen") signifying itself. CINCHOME: Commander-In-Chief, Home Front. Whatever you call it, the spouses are large and in charge at home, dealing with housing issues, while the FS hubby or wifey is about America's business abroad.

So it should surprise no one that they blog about their triumphs and travails on that front.

i.) "blog about the American school"

See my last immediately above. Everything I said about spouses and housing goes double for anything related to FS kids and their education.

I've been at posts that did, and ones that did not, have an American school. Sure, the families at the one without would have loved to have had the luxury of dealing with the problems of the posts that do have them. Life, and blogging, is like that. You write about the experiences you have, not about the ones you don't have.


j.) "lack of embassy jobs".

This is a very big deal. The career, financial, professional, and employment dynamic of American families, of married couples, is vastly different than that of only a few decades ago.. The ability, or inability, of FS spouses to find (or be offered) gainful employment during their FS hubby or wifey's assignments abroad has a measurable and drastic impact on both their gross family income and their retirement benefits. That's a fact. It's also a fact that, due to job requirements (such as language fluency or lack thereof), not every embassy support staff job is suitable or available for an EFM to fill.

So of course it's going to get blogged about.

One of the little leadership laws that's passed down within the military is the adage that you should never give an order that you know will not be obeyed.

(How big a hint can I make this? Should I draw a picture?).

"I am convinced that some bloggers are "allowed" to blog by default because their bosses have no idea what a blog is. Seriously.


Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because maybe they are lucky enough to have adult bosses with no control issues who recognize that warts and all are part and parcel of real life, even in organizations. As long as your blog does not end up in NYT or Al Kamen's column, you're safe. Of course, their bosses may have blogs, too :-) and did not want to be outed!

Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because no one has yet complained about them, or the blog is obscure enough it does not register on anyone's radar screen.


Some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because their bosses look the other way. These blogs are usually like mini-DipNotes. What's the harm in letting them PR blog for free? And if they write something nice about their bosses, then that is super great, too.


Finally, I think some bloggers are "allowed" to blog because the Big House has not yet found the right stick to scare them to death and make them stop. In almost all instances they eventually find the right stick, so the blog disappears. Unless ... the blog stays .... in which case ... well, that's another story down the road."

CAA has not (yet) been called upon the Tiger-y carpet. There's no accounting for that. A number of my colleagues know (more than I probably realize) who I am. At least one DS agent knows, because he made a fairly pointed, if friendly, crack to me one time about "an FSO's anti-Administration blog."

(Anti-administration? I've commented upon criticisms of not only this, but the previous administration. No matter.)


"I've lost count the number of FS blogs that have gone dark. A trend that is both disturbing and sad. In the end, I think every FS blogger must decide on his/her own comfort level and decide how much grief he/she is willing to put up with in order to blog, tweet or FB. As long as the Big House considers blogging a "dangerous" hobby or preoccupation even in its employees/family members private capacities, this is also a "livelihood" issue. When you butt head with city hall, you will get more than a headache."

Part of the solution to this issue will be FS bloggers learning to manage upwards. There's still a huge cadre of very senior folks within the Department for whom "leadership" is still something of a foreign concept, so I expect "social media" is going to take a little longer. So watch your blogging, watch out for each other, and try to train upper management to see blogging as a positive force.

Smart upper management is going to keep an eye on FS, particular FS spouse, blogging as a bellweather to spot problem areas early, well before they become the sujbect of an OIG investigation or congressional inquiry.

"Truth to tell, I have not seen or heard of Tigers actually yanking anybody's clearance due to an offending blog. I am aware of private sessions of discouragements, issues with onward assignments, and of course, threats of various colors and stripes among FS bloggers. And as far as I know, they have not technically kicked out anyone who blogs either -- unless you call the "push" to retirement a payback kick.

Fear as we all know is a great motivator. Sometimes, a Tiger's growl is just that, a growl and enough to do the job. Of course, it does not mean that the Tiger will not also eat you!"


9/14

re: "Busy. Oh, But I'm Thinking A Lot About Blogging. State-Blogging, To Be Specific."

Donna at Email From The Embassy ("After three years in Beijing, we're headed to Amman, Jordan. For family and friends who want to follow our adventures, this is it...") posts some commonsensical rules for diplobloggers.

Money quote(s):

"(V)arious factions in State seems to have worked themselves into a swivet over a few of my blogging pals. What gives, State? It might be time to put some specifics in the FAM, so people know what the rules are, sort of the way we know about cost constructing travel to CONUS and applying for special needs allowances. We could use some rules! As Diplopundit pointed out today, the letter writer in this month's FSJ suggested that we all go back to writing in diaries and stuffing them under our pillows (ummm... not recommended in China, I hope!), or apply for jobs with the Huffington Post (wouldn't THAT get people's attention, if all of us State bloggers suddenly picked up that sized audience!). I get it: the writer doesn't like blogs. But to try to pretend he doesn't want to ban them outright, and then offer those flippant suggestions as replacements, is a bit disingenuous."

The aforementioned letter writer in the FSJ is a senior-ish, and well-respected, consular officer. Not yours truly, you understand: more respectable than ichmo.

"We've built this community, and we turn to each other for advice and support and laughter. (Also, pictures of nasty gigantic spiders lurking in bathtubs - you know who you are....). Many of us, myself included, started our blogs as a way to keep far-flung family members in the loop. So not only do these blogs tie us into our communities, but they help us keep our ties to our families back home. We're not going away, even if the Huffington Post does come calling."

There are several broad categories within the U.S. diploblogging "community." One of them encompasses Donna's web log; it's about family and FS life and helps keep our far-flung community a little bit more close-knit than distance used to allow. Yay technology!

Here are Donna's suggested rules:

"First: Don't Bite The Hand That Pays You. We are all of us, employees, spouses and children alike, representing the United States government every time we walk out our doors. I might be "just" a spouse with a spouse job and not much say-so in the Embassy, but when I'm here, to many of my neighbors out in the wide world, I AM the US government. So as a blogger, I am not allowed to criticize the work that the Department of State is doing, in Jordan, in the region, in the world, even. That's not my place. I won't do it at a dinner party, and I certainly won't do it on my blog. Doesn't matter what I think of our position on Palestine: if it differs from the USG-position, I can't put it on my blog. Even if it's the same as the USG-position, I'm likely going to avoid discussing it, anyway. This is a personal blog, after all, not a government-sanctioned one, so those types of discussions really don't belong here."

Some of us don't quite color within the lines on this one; I brush up against them myself quite often. But most often, I'm only reporting on what others have said and commenting thereupon.

"Second: Use the Past Tense. If you're going somewhere tonight, don't tell me about it until tomorrow. It doesn't make sense to advertise your whereabouts to complete strangers, through your blog or any other means. It's like cancelling your newspaper before you go on vacation, so no one realizes you're gone. It's just safer that way."

This is a very good and common sense suggestion that promotes operational security. Don't publish your future movements or schedule. That makes it too easy for those who may chose to do you, or your colleagues and/or loved ones, harm.

"Third: Limit the Details. I might tell you my street is narrow and crowded and full of Land Rovers, but I won't tell you if it is three streets up from the Embassy, right side, next to the Mexican restaurant. That's too much detail. I'll show you pictures of my house (assuming it's presentable), but only from the inside. You won't see the front of my house. You won't see pictures of my alarm system. You won't see any of the measures that keep me safe here at post. And speaking of pictures:"

Again, just helping make it a little more difficult for dangerous amateurs to do you harm.

"Fourth: No Pictures Without Permission. Don't post pictures of non-family members without their permission! If your colleagues don't permit you to post their pictures, don't do it. And don't post their names, either. First names, I think, are generally okay, but again, with permission! If you're not sure if they'd like it, don't put it out there."

This is also good advice for FS Facebook users.

"Fifth: No Gossip. About those colleagues: watch what you say about them. I, for one, have had the privilege of working with some smart, talented, funny people over the years. There are some seriously smart people working on your behalf at most Embassies around the world. (Also some odd ones, but hey: you'll find those strange birds in any profession. Just don't call them out on your blog!) But, really, even if what you want to say about someone is a compliment, you really ought not talk them up without permission. There are loads of people who agree with our FSJ letter writer that blogs are scary things, and you don't want to draw attention to those types of people, or to your blog, by posting details about such colleagues."

There's an "Old Army" rule about all the men being brave and all the ladies virtuous. The internet is tailor-made for spreading gossip, some of it even having a little bit of truth at the core of it. Just don't. Even if you're mad at something, or someone, that seems senseless, that's vexing you at your post, because as often as not you don't have all the facts about it anyways.

It does no one any good to post about who's incompetent or lazy, drinks too much or has an eye for the ladies (or lads). If it rises to the level of a problem, then it's the post's RSO or DCM who needs to be put into the loop, not the entire internet.

"(I)f no one will make the rules for us, maybe we need to make them ourselves. It should be basic common sense, in most cases. But your ability to blog should not and cannot depend upon the kindness of your boss. If you are following the rules, you shouldn't get slammed simply because your new boss doesn't approve of blogging. They cannot tell you that posting a picture of your baby at a doctor's appointment is a violation of your child's medical privacy rights, because that's simply not true (trust me: I asked a lawyer). But they can restrict things you want to say if those things contradict the work of the Department. Of course they can. They do it in the private sector, too."

This new media stuff is still something of a frontier, at least it is for not-new organizations like State. So diplobloggers are a sort of pioneer, which can be a good thing if handled right.

"Don't discuss policy; don't endanger yourself or others by posting details of upcoming events; don't post pictures that show the front of your house, or the school, or the car; don't talk about colleagues; don't post photos of colleagues without permission."

Nice summary and it probably belongs on the sidebar of every diploblog.

Posting Hiatus

Posting will be light-to-nonexistant over the next two weeks as CAA takes a much-needed break.

Carry on as before.

That is all.

re: "Love Letters to Congress and Who Gets Magic Dragoned Between FSI and First Post"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") has created a whole new tag.

Money quote(s):

"I still look at this as a fairness issue for those who remains in the Service. I just hope you all don't get get stuck in the OCP fight. If you are a member of the FS community, your main mission if you decide to accept it -- ta-da! --is to to help educate Congress and the American public about your work and your life abroad in the service of this country. Congress is not the enemy, ignorance is.

The U.S. State Department as an organization has never been good at explaining its work to Congress and the American people. You don't believe me? Ask your neighbors what they know about Foreign Service Officers, and they'd probably ask which foreign country these officers serve. If you tell them, the United States of America, they'd probably ask if these officers are, you know ... real Americans, being foreign and all. And those who are able to identify them as American diplomats would inevitably bring up the words, "pinstriped, cookie pushers," "cocktails", "elite" and most recently, of course, "voluptuous blond" and "WikiLeaks." To others they are nothing more than visa stampers and passport shufflers. A good number of the American public who travel overseas have no reason to see them at US embassies or consulate unless they have lost their passports, marry or adopt a foreigner, lands in the foreign hospital or jail, survives a plane crash, is a victim of crime, is evacuated, or in a host of other emergency crises abroad."

As a Department, State will always lack the kind of domestic constituency that a department which, for instance, builds jet engines and weapons systems in lots of congressional districts will have. That's reality. As both a "diploblogger" and a "milblogger," part of my "mission" as CAA is to educate and advocate with the folks who should be our natural allies, our colleagues in the uniformed services.

"You will hear officials insisting that State is full of really smart, really talented people. But you just have to take their word for it because the officers themselves, smart as they are, are not allowed to have their own opinions or tell their stories. Even in their private capacity. What? Like we're afraid FSOs would wikileaked themselves in their blogs?"

There would be a reason (or two) why this web log is pseudonymous.

"Just so sad.... you see all these wide-eyed newbies entering the service and then puff, their blogs get magic dragoned between FSI and their first posts."

"(M)agic dragoned." That's a new one, but apt enough. I've seen the terms "black dragon," "tigers," and "mandarins" used, generally implying what Dave Barry likes to call "the powers that be" (i.e., white men in blue suits).

"Telling the story of the Foreign Service is not an easy thing. You walk that fine line of either coming across as too whiny or as too bland if you've got nothing else to blog but brown grass in your backyard due to drought. A good thing that the FS has some talented writers who are able to straddle the fine line."

Beautiful German of the Week

Collien F., the Beautiful German of the week.

(Because bloggers do not live by text alone.)

The Consul's Files

The newest "must-read" in the consular end of the blogging pool is The Consul's Files.

Madame le Consul is doing a fabulous job of sharing her consular experiences.


Hat tip to Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Blogging the Foreign Service: Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.").

re: "Obama and the new template"

Neo-Neocon is trying to make sense of something.

Money quote(s):

"I’m not advocating some sort of armed insurrection. I believe Obama can, and must, be defeated at the polls, and that the same thing has to happen to a significant number of Democrats in Congress. It seems an urgent matter to work for this."

"(T)he blogosphere represents only a small minority of the population. What we have in common here is that we pay more attention than the average person to political and world events; otherwise, we wouldn’t be spending all this time at our computers reading and writing. Whether as a group we’re more intelligent or wiser than people who don’t do this is unknown and unknowable, but we are at the very least more well-informed and more strongly motivated."

&

"(W)hat is “the worst?” For some of us, it’s that Obama is a puppet run by others on the Left who have nefarious plans of various sorts. For some (and again, I’m in this group I’m about to describe) he is mostly his own man, an ideologue of the Left who has grandiose ideas of how he will make this country into something between a European welfare state and Chavez’s Venezuela, grabbing greater and greater power for the executive branch, and cooking the election rules (through redoing the census, relaxing voter registration laws even further, and enlisting the help of ACORN in outright fraud) so thoroughly that he hopes that his wing of the party will never lose control. As for foreign policy, whether Obama be the pawn of others or the master of his own fate, his plan appears to be to weaken the US and its influence on the world stage, bowing to international groups such as the UN and other organizations that feature a preponderance of tyrannies, as well as selling out Israel.

To most people in this country, however, this sounds not only absurd but unhinged."

(Bold type added for emphasis.)

re: "A Foreign Policy Insurgency?"

Cheryl Rofer at WhirledView ("A Look at World Politics & Most Everything Else") posted an interesting book review.

Money quote(s):

"Connectivity, a central concept in Barnett’s thinking, is changing the world. The connectivity provided by fax machines and primitive e-mail helped to undercut the Soviet Union and got the Tianmen Square rebels’ story out in 1989. Now we get tweets as Mumbai is being attacked. We have hardly begun to exploit that connectivity. "

"I belong to a cluster of bloggers who discuss foreign policy and other topics. We read each other’s blogs and link among them. Barnett calls us, if I understand him correctly, superempowered individuals. I’m not entirely happy with the jargon aspect of that phrase or what Barnett seems to mean by it. I have access to a great many things through the internet, true; but there are limits to the power that gives me. One of thosee limits is being heard. If I write a blog and nobody reads it, does it really exist?"

&

"Very Special People. That term, abbreviated VSPs, refers to those whose ideas Count, who are listened to by the media and the political class. The requirements for entry into VSP status include credentialization by a university (Ph.D. preferred) or holding a high position in an appropriate government organization. And, of course, to be okayed by the VSP community."

re: "Quickie: A Note on Blogging"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit relayed some links and tips about blogging.

re: "Diplomatic Bloggers: No Blanket Ban but Better Guidelines Needed"

DS at Diplopundit ("Blogging the Foreign Service: outside looking in, sometimes, inside looking out; monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and elsewhere in the diplomatic universe, so you don't have to. ") continues her discussion of State's "social media" rules.

Money quote(s):

"As far as I know, there is no blanket ban on blogging by diplomats writing in their private capacity. But there may be soft and hard pressures exerted on employees or their family members not to blog by various characters in the bureaucracy. This is probably one of those many things in the FS that fall into the “it depends” category. This is probably one of those things in the FS that is having a hard time trying to catch up with the real world without a hard push (remember those Wang computers that you had to put up with until Colin Powell said 'nuff already?)."

Oh yes, I well remember the Wang computers that everyone was forced to use. There would, if you were lucky, be one PC on an office floor, which people could use, if they signed up for time slots.

"Logic dictates that if senior officials do not have time to clear materials written in your private capacity in Timor-Liste or in London, they absolutely won’t have time to clear your random thoughts and musings in a war zone. "

Ya think? Don't higher management have a lot more to do that this?

If you think they don't, you're wrong.

"Are we to understand that although these guidelines have been in the books forever -- that State will look the other way, as long as your blog is not controversial and remains obscure? (John Matel was controversial at some point when he wrote his To My Overwrought Colleagues, but he did not put State in a bad light), or as long as the New York Times has not come calling for that interview? Or could it simply be that State is trying to catch up with the times, but has not quite made up its mind on how to change the rules?"

re: "Diplomatic Bloggers: That "Official Concern" Thingy/1"

DS at Diplopundit ("Blogging the Foreign Service: outside looking in, sometimes, inside looking out; monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and elsewhere in the diplomatic universe, so you don't have to. ") begins a multi-part discussion on the new "social media" guidelines at State Dept.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he good news is there appears to be no official ban on blogging; the bad news is -- but there are hoops to jump."

Part "/2" here.

Part "/3" here.

Part "/4" here.